Plenary, 11 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, November 11, 1999

Official Report 791KB pdf

---

Millennium Date Change

The first item of business is the statement and debate on the millennium date change problem and a report on the readiness of the Scottish infrastructure. It will be a two-stage process: after the minister's statement, which should not be interrupted, there will be a short period for questions for clarification and then we will move on to the debate.

I remind members that the debate will be interrupted at 11 o'clock to allow the Parliament to observe the national two minutes' silence.

Thank you, Sir David. With your permission, I would like to make a statement on the millennium date change problem, which is really a report on the readiness of the Scottish infrastructure.

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said on 30 March 1998:

"Our aim is to avoid material disruption to public services over the century date change period, and to maintain public confidence that this will be achieved".

When the Prime Minister made that statement, he made no distinction between services for which Government has direct responsibility and those for which it does not. He accepted that, in practice as well as in theory, the buck stops with ministers to oversee the action being taken across the UK infrastructure by a range of bodies in the private and public sectors.

The year 2000 problem, or millennium bug, is a UK-wide issue and, since autumn 1997, all UK Government departments and agencies, including those in Scotland, have regularly reported their year 2000 progress to the Cabinet Office. Since July 1999, those reports have been given monthly and there has been an accompanying ministerial statement by the President of the Council in Westminster. I have issued parallel reports to all MSPs to ensure that members have been kept up to date with progress. The powerful message is that we want to be open, transparent and inclusive on this issue. I have been in touch with MSPs on 23 July 1999, 5 October 1999, 29 October 1999, and the millennium bug booklet has also been issued.

Today, with only 50 days to go, and with increasing public interest in year 2000 matters, I intend to report on the overall state of year 2000 preparedness throughout the infrastructure in Scotland.

As members will appreciate, the failure of microchips and software could have had a serious impact on so many services on which daily life depends—almost all human activity could have been affected. The problem is all-pervasive and had to be addressed with the utmost seriousness.

Achieving year 2000 compliance in any big, modern organisation requires rigorous, systematic and sustained effort over a substantial period of time and means that the organisation has taken the following steps. First, it has drawn up a comprehensive list of systems and equipment that could be affected by the date change problem. Secondly, it has tested those systems and equipment. Thirdly, it has taken any necessary remedial action to ensure as far as possible that operations will not be disrupted. Fourthly, it has undertaken risk assessment, and, finally, it has tried and tested contingency plans in place.

It is also particularly important that key organisations not only correct and test their systems and equipment but clearly demonstrate to the public and the media that they are dealing with year 2000 problems. Otherwise, our explicit objectives of reassuring the public and answering their concerns could not be achieved. That reassurance of the public is a vital part of the process.

To that end, Action 2000, a Government- sponsored company, was commissioned to manage the millennium infrastructure project on behalf of the UK Government. The project's remit was to raise awareness, provide assistance and support, and establish a public confidence programme to report on the state of preparation throughout the national infrastructure. Part of that process was to instigate an extensive programme of independent assessment and to publicise the results. Action 2000 therefore commissioned a study of key interdependencies in the UK. The study identified the critical importance of infrastructure services to achieving the objective of no material disruption.

On 1 December 1998, we organised the first Scottish infrastructure conference. That brought together the providers of all essential infrastructure in Scotland—the electricity, gas, water, telecommunications and oil companies and the Scottish clearing banks—with public sector consumers of those services such as the national health service, the fire and police services and local authorities. The conference aimed to identify

and explore interdependencies; to share information and best practice; to provide mutual assistance and support; and to provide public assurances. From that was born the Scottish infrastructure forum, a group with representation from all the major players in the fabric of the Scottish infrastructure. That was a first: a unique, unprecedented collaboration and information- sharing exercise that helped to bring us all successfully to where we are today, with 50 days to go.

Action 2000 further decided that the year 2000 rectification programme in the public sector, and among those key utilities, would include rigorous independent assessment. No other country in the world attempted such an undertaking, requiring as it did the comprehensive mapping of the national infrastructure dependencies.

The Scottish Executive acts as the responsible body for a wide and diverse range of public bodies that provide infrastructure services in the country. We reported on progress at three national infrastructure forums in London, the most recent of which took place on 21 October when there was a further round of UK-wide disclosure. Those results were published in a series of newspaper adverts in the national press.

While devolution changed the working relationship with central Government, that in no way reduced the co-ordination of our efforts to ensure that this worldwide problem was dealt with properly. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a member of Misc 4—the UK Cabinet committee for year 2000 matters—and of the civil contingencies committee, which is responsible for emergency planning for the UK as a whole. The Scotland Office is also represented at official level on the millennium steering group, the Scottish Executive's co-ordinating group on millennium matters. We are ensuring that effective communication and liaison exists between the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office.

I am pleased to report that all sectors of the Scottish infrastructure are now categorised as blue under the Action 2000 traffic-light system. That classification means

"the assessment process has identified no risk of material disruption."

Some of the press and some colleagues have expressed concerns about two particular Scottish organisations: Caledonian MacBrayne and Loganair. It is right and proper for those concerns to be expressed; indeed that is why the process was made public and transparent. However, I assure colleagues today that the latest situation shows that those organisations are now classified as blue.

Looking back at the enormous amount of work that was undertaken for the operation to achieve that result, I must say that the exercise was not sterile or valueless, but produced conspicuous benefits. Most organisations already had a contingency strategy, which we will refer to as a business continuity plan. It is good business sense to have a plan that is designed to ensure continuity of service, in case problems occur at any time, for any reason. Those plans have been revisited in light of the millennium threat and revised as necessary. Each business continuity plan now contains a plan within a plan.

Those millennium operating regimes, as we call them, refer to the special arrangements that are being put in place to handle the particular circumstances of the millennium period. They enhance, but do not replace, the normal contingency plans or existing emergency procedures. However, they address all millennium issues, whether bug-related or not. We must remember that there are a number of potential risks over the millennium, for example, extreme weather, not to mention all the millennium parties that will be taking place.

We have also established strategic emergency forums in the major cities. I can provide colleagues with details of the activities that are taking place in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee and the steps that are being taken to ensure that those activities go ahead and celebration is enjoyed without difficulties.

Colleagues will have noticed that, throughout this speech, I have stressed co-operation and good communication. I should perhaps mention here the inter-Parliament and cross-departmental collaboration that has been necessary in bringing this all-encompassing project to what, I have no doubt, will be a successful conclusion. I am a member of the millennium date change committee, which enables devolved administrations to continue to participate. I have had talks on the year 2000 issue with Iain Anderson, special adviser to the Prime Minister, as well as with many other representatives from various Government departments and ministries. This has been a genuine team effort.

In order to continue that, and to ensure a successful incident-free transition into the new millennium, a joint communications centre that will be known as the Scottish information liaison centre—or SILC—will be set up in St Andrew's House. SILC will be manned by representatives from the key utilities, the emergency services, emergency planning officials, the media, the Scottish Executive press office and the Scottish Executive year 2000 team from 6 pm on 31 December until 6 pm on 1 January. Arrangements are in hand to extend this until 5 January, or beyond, if necessary. SILC will provide co

ordinated communication and will pull together incident reports from all over Scotland, the UK and around the world and will collate that data to provide up-to-the-minute information to the media on all key services.

This also means that ministers in both the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office will be kept informed of bug-related incidents whether they occur in Scotland, the UK or abroad, irrespective of whether they relate to devolved or reserved matters. I will provide all members with a SILC telephone contact number in due course.

It is only right that I should be keen to involve every member of this Parliament in activities that are designed to ensure that we have a disruption- free programme. To do that, it is vital that every member has access to the most immediate and up-to-date information. The media will be briefed about the Scottish information liaison centre and will be invited to see the operation of the centre during a dry exercise on 17 December.

This will not be a purely bug-related initiative. It is vital that we remember that new year is a time when large gatherings always put a strain on police resources, when large numbers of people always try to use the phone at the same time and when the weather always seems to be at its worst. That means that there is more probability of disruption at that time of year, even under so- called normal circumstances. SILC will, therefore, monitor all incidents throughout Scotland whether they are caused by adverse weather, larger than usual crowds or different patterns of behaviour or travel. SILC will dispel any bug myths on the night.

SILC will avoid duplication of effort and ensure consistency and accuracy of communications, will facilitate links to Whitehall and the Scotland Office and will allow the media to be kept fully informed. The media must be our link with the public and it is vital that every service that we can provide is in place on the night.

Some people might find it hard to understand that central Government would need to have emergency plans. The truth is that good government always has well-established procedures for a wide range of possible emergencies. Very few of those risks ever materialise, but we would be foolhardy and much criticised if we did not plan for them. I am sure that many members have a personal contingency plan, which is generally known as life insurance. The millennium produces its own unique set of problems and we have done our best to ensure that those have been fully anticipated and prepared for.

Before I conclude, however, I should point out that one area of concern remains. A recent study by Action 2000 showed that, despite numerous attempts to raise the issue's profile, many small and medium businesses in Scotland have been slow to recognise the importance of checking their own systems. Scotland has some 300,000 such companies, around 290,000 of which have under 50 employees.

Those companies form the backbone of Scotland's economy and it is vital that they take sensible precautions against the bug. Each was recently issued with the comprehensive "Last Chance Guide", which outlines the steps that they should be taking. I hope that that will lead to an increase in awareness. This is an area where Scotland's press and media could have an important impact in publicising the problem and in urging that action be taken. Ensuring that all necessary actions have been taken is a team effort, and I ask colleagues—all 129 MSPs—to act as ambassadors in their own areas for emphasising, particularly to the small and medium enterprise sector, the importance of being prepared.

I can provide information for any of my colleagues on who should be contacted and where assistance is available. The local enterprise companies, the support units and Action 2000 have myriad ideas and suggestions of what can be secured if small and medium businesses want to do so. I cannot stress how important it is, during the final 50 days, to get that message across. I understand some of the bottom-line constraints that small and medium enterprises face, but it is critical that they do as much as they can. If help is required, we are keen to provide it.

All the work and co-operation will ensure that, in Scotland, the transition to the year 2000 will not be remembered for major disruptions, but for its unique celebrations. I hope that this statement has been of assistance. I seek the co-operation and assistance of all 129 MSPs to ensure that we achieve that success. I would be pleased to respond to members' questions.

Thank you very much. I take it that those members who pressed their buttons want to ask questions. If any member has pressed their button, hoping to speak in the debate, they should press it again now to remove their name from the list that I have in front of me. I invite questions for clarification.

I thank the minister for his statement and for the inclusive way in which he has gone about this exercise. That is what we have come to expect of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who sets an example to all. I want to ask him for two points of clarification.

First, he opened his statement with a quotation from the Prime Minister on the responsibility of

ministers, which effectively stated that the buck stops with ministers to oversee the action that is being taken on the UK infrastructure by both private and public sector organisations. What does that mean in practice, bearing in mind the comments that the minister later made on the slow preparations that are being made by small and medium enterprises to equip them for the difficulties that may be faced? As the minister said, there are only 50 days to go until the millennium, therefore time is of the essence in ensuring that that ministerial responsibility is met. I would be interested to hear what that means.

Secondly, in all the plans that I have seen, there is a heavy reliance on what the Scottish Executive refers to as independent assessment of the preparedness of plans by public sector organisations. In the contracts that have been issued to those companies to carry out that independent verification, is there any liability on those companies for the effectiveness of their assessment of whether the millennium bug problems have been properly assessed in individual organisations? If something were to go wrong—if there were a breach of practice—would there be any liability on the assessors who have carried out that independent work on behalf of the Executive?

No. We seek a process for the private sector that will include information, advice, exhortation and help, to take companies to a point of millennium readiness that is equivalent to the amber status that exists in the infrastructure. There has been a magnificent and successful programme. Most of the larger companies—partly because of their resources—have been able to comply and progress. During the run-up to 2000, a lot of the small and medium enterprises may also have reached that point. My main reason for raising this issue today was to give members the opportunity, on an all-party, all-Government basis, to tell the public that this is not a partisan point, but an issue that it is in the interests of Scotland to address. I invite members to respond to that.

Mr Swinney's first question concerned whether the buck stops with the ministers. I am always apprehensive when I say that, as what lies ahead in this world can never be known. In referring to the private sector and small and medium enterprises, my intention is not to pick them out as pretending that, on 31 December 1999, they will be ready, when they will not. It is quite clear that, because we have direct responsibility for infrastructure, as I have described it, we do not have the responsibility for what happens in an individual small or medium enterprise.

That said, it is important for the ministers who are responsible for the leadership of all 129 MSPs, and the members themselves, to say to everyone, whether in public or in private, that it is vital to the nation that they respond to what is happening. I hope that that partly explains my comment. I know that John Swinney will forgive me for using a quotation from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Even on a Thursday morning, that is still appropriate in the context of today's statement.

Like John Swinney, I welcome the minister's statement, which was full and reassuring. I have two practical questions. First, can he give us any information about the coding, under the Action 2000 traffic-light system, for lighthouses and for weather stations and related meteorological facilities?

Secondly, given what happened to the telephone system in the west of Scotland when people tried to procure football tickets by telephone, can he reassure us that our telephone system can cope with any unexpected onslaught of demand arising from problems caused by the millennium bug?

The millennium readiness of lighthouses is not one of the key issues that I have been able to concentrate on, but I can assure Miss Goldie that I will send her information about that. Every aspect of Government responsibility has been covered, so lighthouses are millennium ready, and I shall ensure that she knows the details of the process that has been undertaken to achieve that. I can confirm that lighthouses and all facilities connected with safety at sea are millennium ready and at the amber position.

Is the same true of weather stations?

Those facilities have also been covered. They are all at blue and are all millennium ready. I shall provide details about that too, so that Miss Goldie can be reassured.

I can also assure members that, despite the historic event that is to take place on Saturday, we are completely satisfied with telecommunications. Telecommunications companies have been closely involved in all our deliberations, they will be involved in SILC on the night and our discussions with them have been productive.

I want to thank the utilities. They have responded magnificently. They see the difficulties at first hand, and I am sure that they are ready for 31 December. I have no reason to doubt that they will deliver on the night.

That answer prompts me to ask about Glasgow City Council's millennium operating regime and business continuity planning. The problems that arose a week past Friday, when we had two hours with no access to telephones, make me wonder

whether the millennium contingency plan, which I understood had been tested, failed on that occasion. I would like reassurance on that point.

The other point that I wanted to raise is this. Will the minister consider inviting MSPs to the dry run of SILC for the media on 17 December to give us a better idea of what we would be phoning?

I am happy to consider inviting MSPs. I do not know whether we will be able to accommodate both MSPs and the media on the same day, but I support the idea of MSPs attending. I shall discuss the matter of involving interested MSPs. It would be useful for all of us to see the physical context in which SILC will be operating.

We should not press too hard on Glasgow this morning. What is important is that we are going through a rigorous process, and I am happy explain the details of it to members. The local authority in Glasgow has a blue traffic-light status and we have no reason to doubt that it is ready. Again, I will give Fiona McLeod information about the process so that she can be reassured that what is happening in every other council in Scotland is also happening in Glasgow.

Will any millennium failures abroad have an impact on Scotland or the United Kingdom?

In committee discussions in London, we consider up-to-date reports from all Government departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The United Kingdom is leading the world in the seriousness with which we are pursuing the matter. We are also the only country in the world to have conducted independent assessments. We are clear that we are moving forward on all the things for which we are responsible.

We also consider reports from other parts of the world. For trading purposes and for travelling, it has been critical to ensure that we have the maximum information so that we know what is happening. Of course, it is up to each country to pursue this with the vigour that we would expect of them. The information is positive—this is being taken seriously worldwide.

I thank the minister for his statement and for being so open in his responses to questions. The minister referred to ministerial responsibility. What sums have been earmarked for indemnity claims, in the event of the failure of any facility for which the Executive has responsibility? What provision has been made to put extra resources into departments to redeem such situations?

I do not think that the system works like that. We have been keen to act as the key co-ordinator in ensuring that public and private organisations are millennium ready. That demands an enormous amount of good will from the utilities and from the small and medium enterprises, which we are still trying to involve.

This is not a question of indemnity. It is about ensuring that every conceivable step has been taken to avoid disruption on the very important night when we move from one millennium to another. The objective has always been to get the systems and processes right, rather than to deal with Mr Davidson's points, however important they might be to him.

I want to raise again the issue of ministerial responsibility. SILC will be in full control from 6 pm on 31 December through to 6 pm on 1 January. Which minister will head that team, and which ministers will go to the street parties?

I am sad to say that I will not be going to any street parties as I have drawn the short straw and will be on duty. [MEMBERS: "Aw."] I should have been able to elicit a better response than that feeble effort. [Interruption.] Is John Swinney suggesting that he wants to be there as well?

I have not been invited.

With my ministerial responsibilities, that could be arranged.

The serious answer is that there will be duty ministers. I am in charge overall and will take overall responsibility, although, of course, the Scottish Executive takes collective responsibility. Other ministers, too, will be available, especially for areas such as the health service or the prison service, so that there is coverage. We will not isolate our civil servants without ministers, too, receiving collective punishment.

I thank the minister for his frank statement. Can he assure us—I know that this is not directly in his remit—that he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Defence about contingency plans for the Territorial Army in the case of dire emergency? In view of the letter that appeared last November from the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, to George Robertson, saying that if the cuts to the TA went ahead, the TA would be unable to cope, can he assure us, as the cuts did go ahead, that there are other contingency plans in the offing?

Again, I am happy to give complete reassurance on those points. The Ministry of Defence has been actively involved in every step of the process of preparing for the millennium.

Governments, whether of the United Kingdom or

Scotland, are very large. I have been very impressed by the degree of commitment and co-operation. Ben Wallace's point reinforces the fact that we are dealing with serious issues.

If I were prepared to believe anything that the Executive told me, it would certainly be statements from Mr McLeish. [Interruption.] That was a compliment, Presiding Officer.

Can we be confident about the state of readiness when we learn that the Government leaflet to which the minister referred has been produced, at a cost of £9.4 million, in English, Bengali, Greek, Turkish, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Arabic, Gujarati, Somali and Welsh, but not in Gaelic? Can the minister say whether the Scottish Executive was even consulted about that metropolitan omission? Even if Gaels can, by and large, read the leaflet in English, none the less the omission of even considering the Gaelic community is a millennium snub.

That contribution stretches even my patience. I thank Fergus for helping my career to go downwards by congratulating me on the openness of my statement.

That said, this is not the time to think about snubs. It is not a snub; that is a cheap soundbite. We have tried to make sure that in every part of the UK those who do not speak English have the information. It is not a snub to Gaelic speakers to say that they speak English as well as everyone else. The document has been well received and explains in great detail what the problems are and how we can cope with them. I assure Fergus and the nation that there was no intent to snub in not having a box to tick for Gaelic.

We are all grateful for the statement. The minister said that every aspect of government has been covered and is millennium ready and that we are moving towards a disruption-free millennium. Why then are we spending three hours debating it?

I could give a number of answers to that but I will stick to the text. With 50 days to go it is important that we flag up that this is a crucial issue for Scotland. Beyond today every family will be preparing for Christmas and our eye might be off the ball. We are taking the opportunity in the Scottish Parliament, with consensus on the issue, to send a message that the Government is doing as much as it can. However, we still need to get through to the small and medium businesses where there is still progress to be made. I am sure that a large number of speakers will want to contribute to the debate.

I welcome the minister's statement. Will he explain why additional funding has been given to the police but not to the fire service?

At the millennium there will be much more activity by the police. They discussed that with us and that is why the extra money was given. Any additional resources the fire service needs will come from within the service, but they are likely to be much more modest. Angus MacKay can give the member more detail on that when he is winding up the debate.

We are all likely to be struggling for a soundbite today—it is a very important subject but not dreadfully newsy. I want to ask about a matter that is not devolved, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority installation, Dounreay. What communication has the minister's department had with it and will it be supervised from SILC?

There have been detailed discussions between the Department of Trade and Industry, the installation, the nuclear inspectorate and the Scottish Executive. We are millennium ready on all activities related to that facility and to nuclear power stations. Again, we are very pleased with the response we have had. I appreciate how important that question is in terms of public perception of potential difficulties, but again I give my assurance and I will provide Jamie Stone with further information on the discussions that have taken place.

We now move to the debate. If members wish to speak, they should press their buttons now.

I reiterate my thanks to the minister for his statement and for the information that he has given to members in his answers to questions.

The minister made an interesting remark that part of the preparations for the millennium had resulted from co-operation and effective communication between the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office. Bearing in mind the relations between those organisations during the summer, I hope that the co-operation has been more productive than the turf wars that we have read about in the newspapers.

The minister ended his speech on a happy note and with an encouraging tone, saying that we should remember the millennium not for disruption but for successful millennium celebrations. I am almost tempted to wish the minister a happy new year. He confirmed that he will be spending hogmanay at the Scottish information liaison

centre, or at least be in contact with it. I suppose that that is the polite title for the Government's millennium bunker.

The minister said that there was to be a dry exercise for the media on 17 December. I have rarely attended dry exercises with the Scottish media, so I am intrigued to know what will be different about 17 December and the ensuing period, and whether it will be drier or wetter.

I am concerned for the minister with regard to his presence at the centre on hogmanay. It might be appropriate that he is not left to go to the ministerial bunker alone. He should be given ministerial company when he is there. He might find himself sharing the bunker with one of his colleagues who has been disrespectfully named Captain Mainwaring by one of the parliamentary diarists. If all the minister's preparations have been appropriate, I hope that at no stage does he have to perform the role of Lance Corporal Jones and rush around shouting, "Don't panic, don't panic." I hope that no one is there to perform the role of Private Frazer, telling the assembled company, "We're all doomed," although I can think of at least one prominent minister who could perform that task.

Name him.

I will not name him because it might help his career.

As each day goes by, I am surprised continually by the wide remit of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. The inclusion of preparations for 2000 and the eradication of the millennium bug take that remit a stage further, but raise the issue of how cohesive is the breakdown of ministerial tasks.

The minister is responsible for dealing with the millennium bug, but he is not responsible for the development of the digital Scotland strategy on behalf of the Scottish Executive. In a week's time there will be a debate on the modernisation of the Scottish economy, followed by a debate on digital Scotland. If there were a cohesive allocation of responsibilities in the Executive, it would be logical for the minister to be responsible for the preparations for digital Scotland, given that he is responsible for year 2000 compliance. I hope that in the summing-up we are told why the demarcation of responsibilities has not been done in that way.

On a number of occasions today we have expressed our concern at the lack of cohesion in the decision-making process of the Executive and at the lack of clarity of the direction given to key initiatives. The Executive is putting a great deal of energy into a multiplicity of technology initiatives, but there is huge concern in the information technology community in Scotland that the

Government's work has proliferated. Fiona McLeod has raised that point in previous debates, and I am sure that she will raise it today, because it is important that people in Scotland with considerable expertise in information technology are confident that the Government has a clear sense of direction in that important policy area.

Let me be clear about the purpose of the debate and the approach that my colleagues will take to it. It is in no one's interest—despite my flippancy—to scaremonger or to try to imagine the unimaginable and suggest that anything might be likely to happen or might be in danger of happening. There must be recognition of the colossal task that has been undertaken in the public and private sectors to ensure that the disruption that might have happened is minimised. However, we must recognise that there are concerns in our community about any dangers to which our public services and facilities might be exposed because of the year 2000 issue. Our purpose is to pose some searching questions to the Executive, to inform the public about the approach that has been taken and to test the robustness of the assurances given by ministers.

One issue, which put the first note of concern in my mind, is the way in which the minister handled the points raised by Miss Goldie and Fiona McLeod on the sale of tickets at Glasgow City Council for the Scotland v England match on Saturday. There was a big problem with the telephone system, and Glasgow City Council's business continuity plan was not able to cope with a restoration of the service after the disruption.

That has happened within the past fortnight. It is only 50 days until the millennium, when there might be problems with the telephone network. The minister has told us that everything is okay and that business continuity plans are in place. However, we have that clear example of where the business continuity plan was in place and failed. It failed not just in Glasgow City Council, but in other parts of Scotland. This Parliament was pretty much incommunicado for a considerable period on the day of the ticket sale.

Anyone who saw the interviews given by the organisers at the Scottish Football Association ticket office, when they expressed great confidence in the telephone system shortly before the tickets went on sale, would have to ask genuine questions about the millennium compliance of Glasgow City Council, as it was not able to cope with that pressure on the telephone system. That is a serious issue, which has not been dealt with by the points that the minister made in response.

The Executive and the Government in Westminster have produced a range of interim reports that cover the range of services directly

under the control of the Government. That assessment raises issues to which I will return in a moment.

First, I will raise a point about the scope of the Government's work. The Government community is now diverse, as it encompasses a plethora of organisations that deliver public services, which are increasingly remote from what would traditionally have been described as ministerial accountability. Those organisations deliver key public services, which the public expect will continue to be delivered. We need to know how comprehensive the investigation has been.

The minister opened his statement by referring to the Prime Minister, who

"accepted that, in practice as well as in theory, the buck stops with ministers to oversee the action being taken across the UK infrastructure by a range of bodies in the private and public sectors."

That highlights the broad canvas that the Government must cover. Having questioned the minister on that point, I was not reassured that the Government had taken the comprehensive responsibility that that statement by the Prime Minister implies.

Mr Swinney has made some interesting points, covering a wide range from digital Scotland to the Prime Minister's commitments. However, in a serious vein, I must make the point that we could have gone into a tremendous amount of detail this morning—three hours would not have been enough to deal with one department. I am happy to ensure that Mr Swinney receives all the details on how the independent assessment has been carried out. I would not like him, in his political or practical points, to undermine what we have done, because it has been a formidable task for Government departments and utilities. Without his knowing the full facts, which can be put at his disposal, it would be unwise for Mr Swinney to dent public confidence as a remarkable effort has been made, and the results have been positive.

I take the minister's point. The purpose of my speech, as I said, is to ask some searching questions on behalf of the public interest. If I am not here to ask searching questions on behalf of the public interest, I do not know what I am here to do.

It is important that we test what the Government has said. I will compliment the range of work that has been undertaken in a moment, but some questions need to be asked. It might be comforting to know that the Executive and the executive agencies are reported as having reached blue status, but the minister must reassure the Parliament and the country that all the vital services on which we depend are able to operate during the critical period that we are discussing.

I listened to what the minister said in his intervention and in his statement, when he made it clear that our infrastructure is in place. However, I refer him to a statement that the Deputy Minister for Children and Education made the other day, which posed a number of questions about the preparedness of individual schools for the millennium bug, despite the clean bill of health that has been given to local authorities.

I would like to raise four key issues. My first point relates to the focus on 1 January 2000. We talk about the millennium bug, the year 2000 and the millennium date change problem. However, there is a wider date discontinuity problem which, according to some independent experts, might affect the reliability of software for at least the first 30 to 40 years of the next century. We need to understand and appreciate what on-going commitments the Government has to continue the investigation that has been carried out into preparation for the millennium. I say that not to take anything away from those who have worked hard to bring us to the point at which we find ourselves today, but to ensure that we capitalise on the work that has been carried out and that the millennium date change problem is dealt with in the context of a general date discontinuity issue.

When the Deputy Minister for Justice winds up, he will address the issue that Mr Swinney raised, but I want to make a serious point about his contribution. Mr Swinney is absolutely right. We are concentrating on the problem of the date change from 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000. However, there are also problems arising from the fact that 1900 was not a leap year and 2000 is a leap year. That makes 28 February a critical point, as there might be problems with systems jumping forward to 1 March. Work is also being done in the United Kingdom and America on a discontinuity period that stretches well into the future.

I want to reassure Mr Swinney on three issues. First, the date change problem has been acknowledged. Secondly, it has also been acknowledged that there will be problems until the end of February. Thirdly, with experts in the field we will continue to oversee the longer period, so that the questions that Mr Swinney raised can be taken care of. This is a very important issue, which is why I do not want to give the impression that all we have arranged is a one-night sit-in to deal with disruption if it happens. The strategy is much wider than that and much longer in duration.

That was a helpful intervention, and I appreciate the work that has been done to place the millennium in a wider context. That was exactly the reassurance that I was seeking from the minister.

My second point relates to the assessment of preparedness that has been carried out by the Scottish Executive. I have looked through many of the reports, which are comprehensive in their discussion of every aspect and facet of public service. However, they are heavily dependent on assessments that have been made by independent organisations acting on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

The minister has dealt with some of this already, but I would like to know what the arrangements were for selecting the consultancy organisations involved. What assurance can the minister give Parliament that a powerful and rigorous assessment regime has been put in place to test the testers of systems, to ensure that all tests have been carried out to the same standard and with the same effectiveness? We need to know where liability and responsibility rest if some fundamental points are missed, as there are potential problems. Obviously, we do not want anything to happen, but the Government has based much of its thinking on independent assessment work and I would like some reassurance about where that has come from.

My third point relates to availability of resources. From the papers that I have examined, it is clear that a great deal of resources have been expended on guaranteeing that assessment work has been carried out, and that that has absorbed a lot of public and private sector time. However, some key groups are involved. Elaine Smith raised the issue of the allocation of resources to the police forces. There has been such an allocation. The Metropolitan police have been allocated up to £176 million to cover the cost of policing millennium celebrations and dealing with year 2000 problems, but the Deputy First Minister announced additional resources for the Scottish forces totalling only £4.7 million across the country. That seems a little out of kilter with £176 million for the Metropolitan police, bearing it in mind that Edinburgh will hold one of the largest millennium celebrations in the world. I do not plan to obtain a hotel room in Edinburgh on 31 December—probably because I will be at the Government bunker, if the invitation is forthcoming—but I suspect that this city will be very busy. The allocation of resources does not seem to be commensurate with our emergency services' requirement for appropriate support.

The last issue that I would like to raise relates to the planning of contingency. In the Executive's reports, much has been made of the separate business continuity plans that have been developed. I fully accept the vital role that business continuity plans have to play in ensuring the survival of organisations, but will the minister ensure that the plans—which are part of good housekeeping in most organisations, whether in the private or public sector—will be updated regularly? That is particularly important in light of the fact that we might face issues of date discontinuity for a number of years at the start of the next century. Similarly, the millennium operating regimes must be updated regularly. As has been mentioned, the hazards that we will face this hogmanay might be repeated during the next four years. What are the Executive's plans for such eventualities?

While it is clear that many questions need to be answered—I am aware that the minister has already provided some answers—I am happy to offer the Executive the support of the Scottish National party for the work that it has done to tackle the millennium date change problem. I offer the help of the party in tackling any problems that might arise.

The millennium bug was never only an information technology problem. It is a business problem, a public services problem, a problem that has the potential to affect many aspects of everyday life. That is why I repeat the point that I made earlier: it is the Executive's responsibility to complete the job that it has taken on, to ensure that every level of support is provided to our services at the end of this year and that the work that has been done is built on so that any problems of date discontinuity are ironed out.

I thank the minister for his statement, which was full and reassuring. I am also grateful to him for the additional information that he has made available in the course of questioning.

There are many positive aspects of the statement and it is right that they be acknowledged. The Conservative party endorses the stance that the Executive is taking and applauds it for becoming fully prepared for what might be a significant problem, which has taxed minds all over the world. We are reassured by what the minister said about Loganair and Caledonian MacBrayne. I will welcome the more detailed information that he has undertaken to provide, on lighthouses and meteorological facilities. Loganair and Caledonian MacBrayne might find it difficult to operate without reassurance on those points.

The minister should also be commended for setting up the Scottish information liaison centre. It is critical that there should be a central point of contact for MSPs and other concerned people, so that they can find out about the approach that is being taken to deal with problems that might arise.

I was relieved to hear the minister say that the Scottish information liaison centre will not be a

one-night sit-in—I was more relieved that it would not be a one-night stand. We acknowledge that we might all find ourselves on a learning curve from midnight on hogmanay. It is difficult to know what problems might unfold, and it is reassuring to know that the Scottish information liaison centre is structured to continue.

Although I have been positive so far, I must now change the tone of my remarks. I address not Mr McLeish personally, but his colleagues in the Government. I do not think that I am alone in being surprised that three hours of debating time in the chamber should be allocated to this topic. If we are as prepared as we can be to meet the challenge of the millennium bug, why are we having the debate? Would not a ministerial statement with questions afterwards have sufficed? If we are not in a state of preparedness and there are some dire and unanswered questions, we should be having an emergency debate on the state of Scotland.

In fairness to the minister, I think that the situation is not the latter, but the former. If that is the case, I allude to a matter that concerns my party and, more important, an audience outwith the Parliament. It is becoming apparent to many that the timetable of the Parliament is within the firm—and some would say dictatorial—grip of the Executive's parliamentary schedulers. I find it curious that while we have allocated three hours to the debate this morning, in yesterday's debate on homelessness we were reduced to a mere 30 or so minutes. That is despite the fact that serious doubts exist about the Scottish Executive's rough sleepers initiative.

I contrast that with previous instances in the Executive's programme. I think that I speak for many members in the chamber and beyond when I say that the people of Scotland would not just welcome a three-hour debate on drugs abuse, but probably would want us to be here for three days discussing the matter. Yet not once have we had a full session devoted to that topic. The public of Scotland would welcome almost a monthly debate on health. It is a huge issue, affecting everybody in Scotland yet, spasmodically, we are offered a debate when a particular issue arises that concerns the interests of the Executive.

I do not propose to pad out this speech by talking about something that—because of the good work done by the minister—does not merit being included.

I appreciate that we should be debating the important issues raised by Miss Goldie, but Y2K is about the preparedness of all our services to meet the problems that they might face. More important, we need the debate today. As we have learned from the statement, and the questions and answers, there are still issues to be addressed— we need to be sure that the Executive takes them on board.

I appreciate Mrs McLeod's comment and do not for one moment disagree with her. What I am saying is that this is a major issue that has been known about for a considerable period. In fairness to the minister— and I hope that I have made this point clear—it is the fullness of his statement that properly indicates the state of our preparedness. There are other aspects on which members might seek or desire clarification, but it should not take three hours to achieve that. My point is that in the context of the issues that matter to the people of Scotland, responsibility has been assumed for this; the minister acknowledges that. There has been full preparation.

It is the people of Scotland for whom the Parliament is supposed to exist. It has been called the people's Parliament, but I am concerned that it is becoming the puppet of the Executive, as it is not being allowed to breathe. It is not being allowed to debate the issues that matter to the people. We are debating the issues that matter to the Executive or, more important, Mrs McLeod, we are not debating the issues that the Executive does not want us to debate. Whenever there is potential contention or controversy, what do we have? We have a sidestep with an inquiry. Abolition of tuition fees? Sidestep it—appoint an inquiry. Demoralised, demotivated, depressed teachers? Set up an inquiry. I would rather have a debate in the full chamber, where the people of Scotland can see what is going on and be reassured that the highly paid members whom they have put here are attending to their interests, not the interests of a microcosm of powerful people called the Scottish Executive.

As I said earlier, I do not wish to pad this speech out with content that is superfluous to the matter in hand. If I have any concern about this, it is the one that I have just articulated, which is the amount of time being devoted to something that could have been dealt with adequately and competently in another manner, taking up far less of the chamber's time and—more important—freeing up time for debate on issues that are significant to the people of Scotland.

After that speech, Miss Goldie has ruled herself out of the invitation to partake in the bunker on new year's eve. The Conservative party is represented on the Parliamentary Bureau; I take it that those objections were raised during the discussion about the business that would be put forward for debate today.

There is a question about the seriousness with which the issues that Miss Goldie raised are being taken. I hope that the bureau will look at the record of that point in the Official Report, and of the point that I made yesterday on the amount of time available for the European debate, which was far too short. I remind Mr Lyon that the Executive—the people who run the place—has a majority on the bureau. That is not always taken into account when debate times are set.

I thank Mr Swinney for that intervention. There is a fair degree of consensus on the amount of time that was allowed for the European debate, and I agree with the sentiments that were raised.

In general, I welcome the Executive's statement. There are several key areas on which we need further clarification and reassurance that we will not find our public infrastructure in serious difficulties on the night of 31 December. We also need reassurance that the challenges presented by the year 2000 problem are being adequately dealt with.

I welcome the minister's reassurances on Loganair and Caledonian MacBrayne. Those companies provide services that are important to the constituency that I represent. The last thing that we want is to have any questions over those two lifeline services—without them, we would be in a serious situation. Many of us would fail to get to the street parties that we would all like to attend.

I noticed that the minister touched on the question of industry in his speech. Action 2000 has been conducting quarterly surveys on the preparedness of industry, and its September findings showed that 27 per cent of small to medium enterprises have considerable work to do if they are to trade smoothly into the next millennium. Don Cruickshank, then chair of Action 2000, admitted that that figure was extremely disappointing. I wonder whether the minister can give us an update and further clarification on the progress that SMEs have made since the September announcement.

The Scottish Executive's year 2000 website states:

"The Scottish Executive, in conjunction with the providers of key public services, aim to ensure that there will be no material disruption to essential public services on 1 January 2000."

I am sure that we all welcome those sentiments, but, as the minister said in one of his interventions, 1 January is not the key date. Many of the problems will not occur immediately after the stroke of midnight. The potential consequences and subsequent failure and corruption of data files and processes might not arise, or be noticed, or take effect for some considerable time afterwards. There must be on-going monitoring of the effects well into the next year.

Will the minister clarify the qualification for and use of the blue, amber and red light standards to identify the preparedness of the national infrastructure for the year 2000? I am sure that many of us in the Parliament and beyond will welcome the assurances that the minister has given, that the vast majority of the national infrastructure is moving towards blue light status. I would like a little further clarification on exactly what blue light status stands for. My understanding is that it means that the year 2000 activities of the assigned industry or sector have been independently examined and endorsed by assessors who have not identified any risk of material disruption. That is a subjective statement. I accept that there is always the potential for something to have been missed, but I hope that the Executive will comment on the specific criteria used in awarding the blue standard to various sectors.

For example, the offshore oil and gas industry was examined by W S Atkins for year 2000 compliance. On 21 October, W S Atkins reported to the Department of Trade and Industry that, in applying the Action 2000 red, amber and blue colour coding system to its assessment, it could, with confidence, award the sector an overall 100 per cent blue for preparedness. However, the W S Atkins summary of its October findings states:

"There are a number of elements to be completed, such as the finalisation of remedial work, contingency plans, millennium operating regimes and final assurance/discussions with critical third parties. However, there was no indication . . . that any of those outstanding actions were not being properly managed."

I would like the minister to clarify what blue light status means. Clearly, the industry had not fulfilled all the requirements that the independent assessors were seeking.

It is clear, from the example that I have just given, that having blue light status does not mean that the industry has a green light to proceed into the new millennium. Several areas are still to be addressed. The distinction within the blue classification, between the sectors that have completed the work and the sectors that expect to complete the work, must be clarified.

Have you finished, Mr Lyon? You took me by surprise.

I have no more to say.

Before we move on to the open debate, I should like to say that, in order to accommodate everyone who would like to speak, members should aim to speak for no more than five minutes, rather than four. There is time

for everyone to take five minutes.

I welcome the minister's statement and the opportunity to take part in today's debate.

I know that some of my colleagues thought that the debate was strictly for anoraks—I was tempted to go out and buy one for the occasion—but the subject is relevant to everyone in Scotland. This is an important debate. I cannot agree with Miss Goldie that it was not necessary to hold the debate today or to discuss the subject for so long.

The work that has been done over the past year by the public and private sectors in identifying, testing and, where necessary, modifying all date- relevant computer software and embedded chips has been essential. If that work had not been done, the consequences for our society could have been severe. However, we are now able to relax and enjoy the millennium celebrations.

Although I endorse the member's sentiments of approval and appreciation of the efforts made by those involved in ensuring millennium compliance and public safety, I am at a loss to understand what difference the debate will make in any practical sense. What will it achieve to ensure additional compliance?

The debate sends a clear signal that the Government takes the issue extremely seriously. It is a further indication to those organisations that have not already taken action on the matter—in the SME sector, for example—that it is time that they did so.

As I was saying, now we can relax and enjoy the millennium celebrations.

Given Elaine Thomson's comments on the SME interest, does she agree that the lack of members in the chamber is sending out the wrong message?

We are having the debate and, if I ever get to say anything, we will continue to have the debate. I do not necessarily think that it is sending out the wrong signals.

I believe that the Government programme, Action 2000, has done its job very effectively; awareness in all sectors now appears to be high. All sections of the infrastructure have been checked over and can be relied on—they have blue status, which means that there is no risk of material disruption.

I know that the Y2K issue has left many people confused about what the problem is and why it poses a risk. As someone who, in the late 1980s, was working on non-year 2000 compliant systems, I perhaps have a clearer view than most. What has been demonstrated is the effect of the digital revolution that is all around us. The use of information technology is now a core activity. It is essential to the continued smooth functioning of many everyday activities in society.

There has been an explosion in the use of embedded chips in everyday devices. They are in lifts, washing machines, cars—you name it. Many organisations and companies simply could not function without the support of IT, and the infrastructure of this country could not continue to function without the underlying computer systems.

Some may claim that some of the work that has been done has been unnecessary but, without checking, we could not have been sure. Much of the software that was written 10 or 20 years ago was not expected to be still in use today. Over that period, there have been incredible changes in technology. The constraints in writing software 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, do not exist now. Software was written using only two digits to indicate the year; it did not include the century. That is why we have the problems that we have now.

Today, almost all sectors have been checked and remedial action has been taken where necessary. We know that, after the new year, water will be safe to drink, food will continue to turn up in supermarkets, our money will continue to be in banks, and hospitals and Government agencies will continue to run and provide services as usual.

There has been a lot of hype around the year 2000 issue—with talk of pensions disappearing into black holes and planes falling from the sky. Those fears have been proved false. Last week, a headline in Computer Weekly, one of the main IT newspapers, said: "Y2K bug will be non-event, say IT directors". That is good news. It reflects the fact that the necessary remedial work has been done and that, in global terms, the United Kingdom is well prepared. Most organisations, as the minister made clear, have also put in place contingency plans to cope with any failures that may occur.

The scale and cost of meeting this challenge have been high across society. In the national health service in Scotland alone, some £45 million has been spent on year 2000 checks and on equipment replacement. Some 78,000 pieces of equipment have been tested, including 37,000 personal computers and 5,000 laboratory items.

Many employees of organisations such as hospitals and banks will spend hogmanay at work, ensuring that any problems that occur are identified and resolved as soon as possible. The oil and gas industry will be monitoring the situation across the globe through the night and feeding information back to the Department of Trade and

Industry. Many organisations—banks and others— will be in communication with Australia and New Zealand, where people will know some 12 hours earlier whether any disruption is likely to occur. That will give us more time to take action where necessary.

I believe that the major problems in Scotland will be the ones that we usually have around hogmanay—not enough peanuts and one toast too many.

Like Elaine, I was worried that people would think that we were a pair of anoraks, but I am glad that the contributions so far have shown that people have thought about the problem and realised that it affects everyday matters and so should be a high priority.

I want to concentrate on the date discontinuity aspect of the problem. As John Swinney said, the so-called millennium bug is actually nothing of the sort. It is a problem that could recur intermittently on 1 April and 1 September over the next few decades up to 2035. The phrase "date discontinuity" better indicates the general nature of the problem and helps to identify what types of microchip could be affected. It especially helps us to appreciate that, whatever happens at hogmanay, the problem will not be over then but will resurface for many years to come. I ask the Executive what it proposes to do about those future critical dates—in his statement, the minister reassured neither me nor the chamber that any plans had been made to deal with the longer-term implications.

Such planning is important for Governments and local authorities. It is vital that organisations such as the utilities and emergency services are fully in control at all critical times. The BCPs that we have heard about—I thought that I would be the first to introduce acronyms—should be able to cope with whatever emergencies arise at the turn of the year. We all hope that there will be minimum disruption.

However, what will happen on the other predicted or potential critical dates? Will the same BCPs be effective in nine months' or two years' time? A good BCP tells an organisation how to keep its business running when problems of any sort arise. However, any management plan or routine left by itself will deteriorate over time. Although it is all very well to have emergency co-ordinating offices such as SILC—or, as I gather it is called, the bunker—in operation over hogmanay, if such date discontinuity problems arise in the foreseeable future, I have to ask whether the Executive has issued advice on on

going preparedness.

What is the Executive's advice to organisations which choose to switch off vulnerable systems or equipment over the millennium while we are all having a five-day holiday? What will happen when those systems are switched on after 5 January— after SILC has stood down—and they malfunction?

Although the millennium operating regime will probably work well over the millennium holiday, if too many organisations choose to suspend operation of vulnerable equipment at that time, many of them will find that they have only delayed the onset of these difficulties. That is worrying enough for the owners of small businesses. However, if there any chinks in Scotland's national armour and problems become manifest later, our preparations will have been inadequate.

The day-to-day emergencies suffered by our society can be uniformly addressed. We have a framework of legislation identifying the emergency services that can be called into play on occasions such as cases of fire or murder. As the date discontinuity problem could be with us for many years, the country must decide to cope with it in a similarly coherent and sustainable way.

Scotland needs to develop mechanisms to manage effectively and reliably its knowledge base—how we hold, distribute and analyse information. Furthermore, we need to develop and implement a national integrated information strategy to ensure that there are mechanisms to deal with problems when they arise and not just with such one-offs as the matter that we are discussing today.

Like other MSPs, I welcome today's statement and debate on the preparedness of the Scottish infrastructure for the year 2000.

The year 2000 poses serious problems for all organisations and businesses that use computer systems and equipment containing embedded microprocessors. The use of computers and computer-based technology has become so pervasive over the past two decades that it is almost impossible to remember how we managed before. Indeed, I am part of probably the last generation to have gone through school without access to the computers that we now take for granted in the classroom.

The problem of year 2000 compliance lies in the fact that dates were stored in computer systems using only the last two digits of the year. For that reason, systems may fail or produce erroneous results in processing dates involving the year

2000. That would be bad enough without the fact that some equipment used by organisations is controlled by microprocessors that use date and time information to function.

When the year 2000 issue was first discussed, I imagined that I could do no better than stand outside my local bank autoteller with a wheelbarrow to collect the wads of cash that would spew out of the machine when the bank's computer system failed. Unfortunately, there are two major flaws in my get-rich-quick scheme. First, today's ministerial statement indicates that the banking sector feels completely year 2000 compliant. Secondly, given previous years' experience, the last thing that I will be able to do at midnight on hogmanay is to stand anywhere.

When I first heard of the potential impact of the transition from this calendar year to the next, I was somewhat sceptical. I thought it might be just another scam by computer anoraks—I apologise to Elaine Thomson and Fiona McLeod—to confuse the rest of us with their superior knowledge or to get a lot of extra cash out of us by pretending that there was a huge problem when there was not. However, graphic descriptions of planes falling out of the sky and heating systems failing in our hospitals soon led me to understand that there might indeed be a major problem that needed to be taken seriously.

It is clear from today's statement that local councils, the utilities and larger businesses have worked hard to ensure that their systems are year 2000 compliant. That will be an immense relief to everyone, particularly the more vulnerable in our society who would suffer directly if there were major disruption to our social or health care services.

It is particularly pleasing to hear that all local authorities made tremendous progress in the summer to ensure that there would be no material disruption to the infrastructure processes during the new year holiday. It is also reassuring to hear that most Scottish infrastructure is already Y2K compliant. I hope that those areas that are not yet fully ready—some of our smaller businesses, for example—will realise the importance of becoming compliant and will take the opportunity of the next few weeks to ensure that they are.

Like my colleagues on the SNP benches, I welcome the minister's statement. I am more than happy at the outset to acknowledge that preparations for the millennium and the provision of information to the public have been good and, largely, extremely reassuring. However, that is not an excuse for complacency. Fiona McLeod, among others, has raised issues this morning that forcibly bring home that point.

I want to concentrate on two issues. The first has been touched on by previous speakers and was to some extent addressed by the minister. The information provided to the public focuses almost exclusively on the millennium date change. Notwithstanding the minister's comments, there is a widespread public perception that, if we all wake up on the morning of 1 January next year and the world has not collapsed around us, the problem has been averted and there will be nothing to worry about. In fact, as Fiona McLeod outlined, the exact opposite is the case.

The date discontinuity problem could affect the reliability of software for 30 or 40 years after the millennium. The date change from 31 December to 1 January may not be the most problematic one at all. It would be reassuring for members of the Parliament and the public if the minister spent some time outlining how the Executive intends to deal with the problem in the longer term and to keep public awareness high enough to ensure that steps are taken to avoid or minimise disruption in the future.

The second issue is the generality of the information being provided to the public. We know that all 32 local authorities in Scotland achieved blue status in October this year, but we know less about the readiness of the different sectors within local authorities. The booklet that is dropping through all our letterboxes this week, for example, goes into detail about the issues affecting the health service, but mentions issues facing schools only in passing. I would like to think that that is because there is great confidence in the state of readiness of individual schools, but that may not be the case. Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, raised serious concerns among the public when he said on 8 November that

"it is important at this stage for schools to sit down and consider how they will work around any problems when they go back in January."

When the minister said that, there were 53 days to go until the millennium and it was little over a month until schools shut down for the Christmas and new year break.

The minister's statement can be viewed in one of two ways. It was either more than a little belated or it was unnecessary. Either way, the statement will have caused some panic among head teachers in schools around Scotland. School contingency planning should surely have been part of local authorities' millennium operating regimes and local authorities should have been required to demonstrate readiness before being given blue light status.

Schools face a number of challenges. Over the past couple of years, they have had an influx of second-hand and refurbished computers. I look to the deputy minister for reassurance that those computers have been made millennium compatible. Are we confident that science equipment, boiler systems and other electronically controlled equipment will not malfunction, either at the millennium or at any time in the future?

Those are important issues about which there was great confidence until the Deputy Minister for Children and Education issued his statement earlier this week, raising questions about the state of readiness in Scotland's schools. I ask the Deputy Minister for Justice to address the specific points that I have raised and, in particular, to outline the measures that will be taken to safeguard and monitor schools' contingency planning from now until the new year, so that we can be confident that Scotland's children can return to school in January without having to face disruption caused by the millennium bug.

I call Karen Whitefield, and apologise if I have to interrupt her speech at

The problem of the so-called millennium bug seems to have been with us for an eternity, yet many private and public organisations have left the bulk of their preparations until the last quarter of the last decade of the century.

I will not regurgitate the roots of the millennium bug problem, which have been sufficiently described this morning. However, we must learn from the past. What seemed like an insignificant memory-saving device in the 1960s—storing date codes in two digits—has had substantial and far- reaching consequences. For example, it has been estimated that the 15 largest banks in the United States expect to spend $3.5 billion preparing for Y2K.

The profound financial impact of what was, at the time, no more than short-sightedness demonstrates the ever-pressing need to evaluate the long-term impact of new technologies. I welcome the statement by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and recognise the efforts of staff members in all sectors. It is only through thorough endeavours that we can say with some confidence that the Government's stated aim—that there should be no material disruption to the national infrastructure as a result of the millennium bug—will be achieved. It is important that the preparations have been thorough; it is equally important that they have been seen to be thorough.

There has been much scaremongering in the media about the apocalyptic consequences of the millennium bug, and it is important for that reason that we highlight the endeavours of various agencies in achieving the blue light rating. All 32 Scottish local authorities have met the criteria for that rating, as have the three Scottish water authorities and all sections of the national health service, the prison and fire services and the police.

I believe that the Scottish people can have confidence that public services will be functional on 1 January. Part of that confidence should stem from the knowledge that councils and other public and quasi-public bodies have made adequate contingency plans.

The problem of embedded systems will inevitably result in some disruption; the immensity of the problem makes that almost unavoidable. We must continue, however, to minimise the problem through the completion of proper inventories and the testing of equipment.

To conclude, I am confident that Scotland's largest millennium celebration under cover, Masters of the Millennium—which, coincidentally, will be held in Shotts and broadcast across the globe on the worldwide web—will be a raving success. The public address, lighting and internet services will have an undisrupted supply of electricity. The emergency services will be able to deal with those who have celebrated a little too enthusiastically and, the next morning, when it is all over, public transport will be available.